Dataset Information

The LEAP Program: Quality Improvement Training to Address Team Readiness Gaps Identified by Implementation Science Findings.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Integrating evidence-based innovations (EBIs) into sustained use is challenging; most implementations in health systems fail. Increasing frontline teams' quality improvement (QI) capability may increase the implementation readiness and success of EBI implementation.

Objectives

Develop a QI training program ("Learn. Engage. Act. Process." (LEAP)) and evaluate its impact on frontline obesity treatment teams to improve treatment delivered within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).

Design

This was a pre-post evaluation of the LEAP program. MOVE! coordinators (N = 68) were invited to participate in LEAP; 24 were randomly assigned to four starting times. MOVE! coordinators formed teams to work on improvement aims. Pre-post surveys assessed team organizational readiness for implementing change and self-rated QI skills. Program satisfaction, assignment completion, and aim achievement were also evaluated.

Participants

VHA facility-based MOVE! teams.

Interventions

LEAP is a 21-week QI training program. Core components include audit and feedback reports, structured curriculum, coaching and learning community, and online platform.

Main measures

Organizational readiness for implementing change (ORIC); self-rated QI skills before and after LEAP; assignment completion and aim achievement; program satisfaction.

Key results

Seventeen of 24 randomized teams participated in LEAP. Participants' self-ratings across six categories of QI skills increased after completing LEAP (p< 0.0001). The ORIC measure showed no statistically significant change overall; the change efficacy subscale marginally improved (p < 0.08), and the change commitment subscale remained the same (p = 0.66). Depending on the assignment, 35 to 100% of teams completed the assignment. Nine teams achieved their aim. Most team members were satisfied or very satisfied (81-89%) with the LEAP components, 74% intended to continue using QI methods, and 81% planned to continue improvement work.

Conclusions

LEAP is scalable and does not require travel or time away from clinical responsibilities. While QI skills improved among participating teams and most completed the work, they struggled to do so amid competing clinical priorities.

SUBMITTER: Damschroder LJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7878618 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The LEAP Program: Quality Improvement Training to Address Team Readiness Gaps Identified by Implementation Science Findings.

Damschroder Laura J LJ Yankey Nicholas R NR Robinson Claire H CH Freitag Michelle B MB Burns Jennifer A JA Raffa Susan D SD Lowery Julie C JC

Journal of general internal medicine 20200908 2

<h4>Background</h4>Integrating evidence-based innovations (EBIs) into sustained use is challenging; most implementations in health systems fail. Increasing frontline teams' quality improvement (QI) capability may increase the implementation readiness and success of EBI implementation.<h4>Objectives</h4>Develop a QI training program ("Learn. Engage. Act. Process." (LEAP)) and evaluate its impact on frontline obesity treatment teams to improve treatment delivered within the Veterans Health Adminis ...[more]

PMID: 32901440

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImplementation science has been growing as discipline in the past decades, producing an increasing number of models in the area. On the other hand, most frameworks are intended to guide the implementation of programs, focusing on identifying elements and stages that increase their success. This article aims to structure this discussion, proposing a simplified tool that synthesizes common elements of other frameworks, and highlight the usefulness to use implementation science not only in identifying successful implementation strategies but as a tool to assess gaps in global health initiatives.MethodsThe study was carried out through a combined methodology that included an initial search of implementation science frameworks, experts' opinions, and the use of references in frameworks to elaborate a list of articles to be reviewed. A total of 52 articles were analyzed, identifying their definitions of implementation science and the elements of different frameworks.ResultsThe analysis of articles allowed identifying the main goals and definitions of implementation science. In a second stage, frameworks were classified into "time-based", "component-based" and "mixed", and common elements of each type of model were used to propose a synthetic framework with six elements: Diagnosis, Intervention provider/ system, Intervention, Recipient, Environment, and Evaluation. Finally, this simplified framework was used to identify gaps in global health was using The Lancet Global Health Series. Potential areas of intervention arise for five different global health issues: malaria, non-communicable diseases, maternal and child health, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis. Prioritization strategies differ for the different health issues, and the proposed framework can help identify and classify all these different proposals.ConclusionsThere is a huge variety of definitions and models in implementation science. The analysis showed the usefulness of applying an implementation science approach to identify and prioritize gaps in implementation strategies in global health.

Project description:BackgroundPatients undergoing surgery for bowel cancer now have a routine screening test to assess their genetic predisposition to this and other cancers (Lynch syndrome). A result indicating a high risk should trigger referral to a genetic clinic for diagnostic testing, information, and management. Appropriate management of Lynch syndrome lowers morbidity and mortality from cancer for patients and their family, but referral rates are low. The aim of this project was to increase referral rates for patients at high risk of Lynch syndrome at two Australian hospitals, using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) Implementation approach.MethodsMultidisciplinary teams at each hospital mapped the referral process and discussed barriers to referral. A 12-month retrospective audit measured baseline referral rates. The validated Influences on Patient Safety Behaviours Questionnaire was administered to evaluate barriers using the TDF. Results were discussed in focus groups and interviews, and interventions co-designed, guided by theory. Continuous monitoring audits assessed change in referral rates.ResultsTeams (n = 8, 11) at each hospital mapped referral processes. Baseline referral rates were 80% (4/5) from 71 screened patients and 8% (1/14) from 113 patients respectively. The questionnaire response rate was 51% (36/71). Most significant barrier domains were: 'environmental context;' 'memory and decision making;' 'skills;' and 'beliefs about capabilities.' Focus groups and interviews with 19 healthcare professionals confirmed these domains as significant. Fifteen interventions were proposed considering both emerging and theory-based results. Interventions included: clarification of pathology reports, education, introduction of e-referrals, and inclusion of genetic status in documentation. Audits continued to December 2016 showing a change in pathology processes which increased the accuracy of screening. The referral rate remained low: 46% at Hospital A and 9% Hospital B. Results suggest patients who have their referral deferred for some reason are not referred later.ConclusionLynch syndrome is typical of low incidence problems likely to overwhelm the system as genomic testing becomes mainstream. It is crucial for health researchers to test methods and define generalizable solutions to address this problem. Whilst our approach did not improve referrals, we have deepened our understanding of barriers to referral and approaches to low frequency conditions.

Project description:BackgroundIn several recent articles, authors have called for aligning the fields of implementation and improvement science. In this paper, we call for implementation science to also align with improvement practice. Multiple implementation scholars have highlighted the importance of designing implementation strategies to fit the existing culture, infrastructure, and practice of a healthcare system. Worldwide, healthcare systems are adopting improvement models as their primary approach to improving healthcare delivery and outcomes. The prevalence of improvement models raises the question of how implementation scientists might best align their efforts with healthcare systems' existing improvement infrastructure and practice.Main bodyWe describe three challenges and five benefits to aligning implementation science and improvement practice. Challenges include (1) use of different models, terminology, and methods, (2) a focus on generalizable versus local knowledge, and (3) limited evidence in support of the effectiveness of improvement tools and methods. We contend that implementation science needs to move beyond these challenges and work toward greater alignment with improvement practice. Aligning with improvement practice would benefit implementation science by (1) strengthening research/practice partnerships, (2) fostering local ownership of implementation, (3) generating practice-based evidence, (4) developing context-specific implementation strategies, and (5) building practice-level capacity to implement interventions and improve care. Each of these potential benefits is illustrated in a case study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network.ConclusionTo effectively integrate evidence-based interventions into routine practice, implementation scientists need to align their efforts with the improvement culture and practice that is driving change within healthcare systems worldwide. This paper provides concrete examples of how researchers have aligned implementation science with improvement practice across five implementation projects.

Project description:BackgroundTeam-based interventions are effective for improving safety and quality of healthcare. However, contextual factors, such as team functioning, leadership, and organizational support, can vary significantly across teams and affect the level of implementation success. Yet, the science for measuring context is immature. The goal of this study is to validate measures from a short instrument tailored to track dynamic context and progress for a team-based quality improvement (QI) intervention.MethodsDesignSecondary cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of data from a clustered randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a team-based quality improvement intervention to reduce central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates in intensive care units (ICUs).SettingForty-six ICUs located within 35 faith-based, not-for-profit community hospitals across 12 states in the U.S.PopulationTeam members participating in an ICU-based QI intervention.MeasuresThe primary measure is the Team Check-up Tool (TCT), an original instrument that assesses context and progress of a team-based QI intervention. The TCT is administered monthly. Validation measures include CLABSI rate, Team Functioning Survey (TFS) and Practice Environment Scale (PES) from the Nursing Work Index.AnalysisTemporal stability, responsiveness and validity of the TCT.ResultsWe found evidence supporting the temporal stability, construct validity, and responsiveness of TCT measures of intervention activities, perceived group-level behaviors, and barriers to team progress.ConclusionsThe TCT demonstrates good measurement reliability, validity, and responsiveness. By having more validated measures on implementation context, researchers can more readily conduct rigorous studies to identify contextual variables linked to key intervention and patient outcomes and strengthen the evidence base on successful spread of efficacious team-based interventions. QI teams participating in an intervention should also find data from a validated tool useful for identifying opportunities to improve their own implementation.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite being disproportionately burdened by preventable diseases than more advanced countries, low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) continue to trail behind other parts of the world in the number, quality and impact of scholarly activities by their health researchers. Our strategy at the Nigerian Implementation Science Alliance (NISA) is to utilise innovative platforms that catalyse collaboration, enhance communication between different stakeholders, and promote the uptake of evidence-based interventions in improving healthcare delivery. This article reports on findings from a structured group exercise conducted at the 2016 NISA Conference to identify (1) gaps in developing research capacity and (2) potential strategies to address these gaps. METHODS:A 1-hour structured group exercise was conducted with 15 groups of 2-9 individuals (n = 94) to brainstorm gaps for implementation, strategies to address gaps and to rank their top 3 in each category. Qualitative thematic analysis was used. First, duplicate responses were merged and analyses identified emerging themes. Each of the gaps and strategies identified were categorised as falling into the purview of policy-makers, researchers, implementing partners or multiple groups. RESULTS:Participating stakeholders identified 98 gaps and 91 strategies related to increasing research capacity in Nigeria. A total of 45 gaps and an equal number of strategies were ranked; 39 gaps and 43 strategies were then analysed, from which 8 recurring themes emerged for gaps (lack of sufficient funding, poor research focus in education, inadequate mentorship and training, inadequate research infrastructure, lack of collaboration between researchers, research-policy dissonance, lack of motivation for research, lack of leadership buy-in for research) and 7 themes emerged for strategies (increased funding for research, improved research education, improved mentorship and training, improved infrastructure for research, increased collaboration between academic/research institutions, greater engagement between researchers and policy-makers, greater leadership buy-in for research). CONCLUSIONS:The gaps and strategies identified in this study represent pathways judged to be important in increasing research and implementation science capacity in Nigeria. The inclusion of perspectives and involvement of stakeholders who play different roles in policy, research and implementation activities makes these findings comprehensive, relevant and actionable, not only in Nigeria but in other similar LMICs.

Dataset Information

The LEAP Program: Quality Improvement Training to Address Team Readiness Gaps Identified by Implementation Science Findings.

Background

Objectives

Design

Participants

Interventions

Main measures

Key results

Conclusions

Publications

The LEAP Program: Quality Improvement Training to Address Team Readiness Gaps Identified by Implementation Science Findings.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets